Water restrictions on the way

FILE -- In this Feb. 4, 2014 file photo, a warning buoy sits on the dry, cracked bed of Lake Mendocino near Ukiah, Calif. The Legislature will revisit overhauling an $11.1 billion water bond measure that is scheduled to go before voters in November, when they return from a month long summer recess. Facing one of he most severe droughts in the state's history, lawmakers are negotiating a deal that funds projects that increases water supply and availability.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)
The Associated Press

FILE -- In this Feb. 4, 2014 file photo, a warning buoy sits on the dry, cracked bed of Lake Mendocino near Ukiah, Calif. The Legislature will revisit overhauling an $11.1 billion water bond measure that is scheduled to go before voters in November, when they return from a month long summer recess. Facing one of he most severe droughts in the state's history, lawmakers are negotiating a deal that funds projects that increases water supply and availability.(AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

State regulators are on the verge of ordering tough water conservation measures that include stiff fines for those who refuse to comply — an unprecedented emergency mandate being taken as a historic drought threatens the economic and environmental vitality of California.

“We don’t know if it’s going to rain again. It’s prudent to act as if it won’t,” said Felicia Marcus, chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board.

The state board’s proposal would permit lawn watering just twice a week. Hoses used to wash cars must have a shut-off nozzle and decorative fountains have to recirculate the water. Washing driveways and sidewalks would be prohibited. Penalties could amount to $500 a day.

However, local districts will have leeway to enact modified rules, such as allowing more watering days, if they have other off-setting, water-saving restrictions.

The board is likely to adopt the decree Tuesday following a public hearing. If so, the regulations would go into effect Aug. 1.

If approved, it will be the first time California officials have imposed rationing on a statewide basis. During the past two droughts, 1976-1977 and again from 1987 until 1992, water restrictions were localized.

The impact in San Diego County will vary,

The city of San Diego on July 1 imposed a number of similar restrictions so it may be in full compliance already, depending on the final state water board product and the reaction by regulators to the city’s steps. For example, the city already demands time-of-day limits for when landscapes can be water — before 10 a.m. and after 6 p.m. — but the three days a week provision is voluntary for now.

Many other local districts have prepared, but not yet adopted, model ordinances that lay out limits along the lines of what the state is proposing. The San Diego County Water Authority, anticipating a drought several years ago, prepared recommendations that impose increasingly tighter savings depending in the depth of the dry spell.

The state board’s proposal would grant local districts discretion as long as they have adopted mandatory rationing policies. For example, many districts permit three days a week watering, but have other restrictions so residents would not be subject to the two-day limit. Districts could also issue warnings or lower-cost tickets for first time offenders.

“We’re not out to spank people. We’re trying to ring the bell and get people’s attention,” Marcus said.

Tim Quinn, executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies, said on first blush the state water board “is doing the right thing.”

The regulations would save about 500,000 acre feet statewide if there is full compliance, according to state estimates. That’s enough to serve 1 million average homes for a year.

The proposal is being advanced just as reports suggest San Diego residents, after a long period of wringing savings, have now started to use more water. The latest data repots that water use climbed 10 percent between January and May as compared to the same five-month span in 2013 — primarily due to the hot weather.

Studies from previous mandatory rationing steps suggest a savings of between 19 percent and 29 percent can be achieved, according to regulators.

California is in the throes of one of its deepest dry spells in history, with reservoir levels plummeting and last winter’s snowfall virtually nonexistent. Without a miraculous recovery this winter, water managers fear economic and environmental disaster. Already farmland is being fallowed, fish are threatened with survival and as number of cities have had to impose rationing independently.

The San Diego region and most of Southern California has avoided rationing, primarily because of reserves stashed at Lake Mead and elsewhere in California. But those cushions are expected to evaporate this year.

“We’ve been able to ride out this year, but we’re living off our reserves,” said Ken Weinberg, director of water resources for the San Diego County Water Authority.

Outdoor water use is the primary target because it consumes vast amounts of water available for urban areas.

The proposed rules are not as tough as they could be,

There are no new restrictions on indoor water use and businesses are spared.

Marcus said the proposed order would not likely appease all. True, said Jonas Minton, who monitors the issue for the Planning and Conservation League.

Minton called it a “modest step” that applies only to city users. “Nothing is proposed in this (regulation) for agriculture users, some of whom are actually planting more water-intensive, but nonessential crops, such as almonds,” he said. “The state should require agriculture and businesses to do their share.”

Farms have already absorbed significant cuts from state and federal water suppliers, leaving thousands of acres unplanted and tossing field hands out of work, Marcus said.

The state has been pressing a goal of a 20 percent reduction over time as part of its broader water strategy, but the proposal is an admission that voluntary actions to reduce use have failed. A recent report pegged the statewide conservation at 5 percent.

The ongoing crisis and subsequent rationing will likely put more pressure on state lawmakers as they head into August still deadlocked over a proposed water bond package to build new reservoirs, step up recycling and take other actions to provide supplies.

The regulations may cost agencies more than water. By forcing conservation, the board projects that 403,000 acre feet will be saved. With prices slightly more than $1,000 per acre feet, agencies across the state could lose about $438 million in sales cumulative statewide, according to state documents. That, in turn, could force some districts to ponder higher rates for less supply.

The state board is acting under its authority granted by Gov. Jerry Brown in his drought emergency order a few months ago.

Marcus said the state will keep close tabs heading into 2015. She pointed out that Australia just endured a 10-year drought.

“If the drought goes on we may have to amp up the restrictions,” she said.

She called the approach reasonable and “the least people could do” given the punishing nature of the dry spell across California.

“Having a dirty car and brown lawn should be considered a badge of honor,”, Marcus said.

Proposed restrictions

Prohibited activities:

• Watering landscapes to the point that it causes runoff to adjacent property, sidewalks, streets and other areas.

• Using water to wash hard surfaces such as sidewalks and driveways.

• Using a hose to wash a vehicle unless the hose has a shut-off nozzle.

• Using drinking water in a fountain or decorative water features unless the water is recirculated.

Penalties:

• Violations would be punishable by fines of up to $500 each day. However, most cities have a sliding scale that starts with a warning and increases for repeat violations.

• Tickets could be written by any public employee empowered to enforce laws.

• Urban water agencies would be required to implement their water-shortage contingency plans to require mandatory restrictions on outdoor water use, if they haven’t done so already.

• Those agencies without a plan would have 30 days to begin requiring their residents to restrict outdoor irrigation to no more than two days each week or take other mandatory steps to conserve the same amount of water.

• Water suppliers who don’t comply could face fines up to $10,000 each day.